[Spuds Hilton, the author of the article] said in an interview that while he has no clue as to the identity of the alleged nude judge, "the whole idea of sailing the seven seas naked makes the mind race. When you hear that a member of the highest court in a country the size of Canada may be lounging by the pool buck-naked, daiquiri in hand, you know that people will be interested.

"The owner of the travel company said that nudity is the great equalizer," Mr. Hilton added. "I guess that makes sense -- no power suits, no uniforms, no $600 pumps and, apparently, no judge's robes."

Here in the U.S., the justices are always blabbing about "judicial modesty," but who know what kinds of vacations they take?

Anyway, a naked cruise? It's just so perfectly awful, combining the horrors described in two of my favorite essays, "Naked," by David Sedaris and "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again," by David Foster Wallace. And then add Supreme Court Justices for a truly dreadful, nightmare vacation.

There are rather few humans so blessed in anatomy to warrant a boat ride in their birthday suit. Of that small circle, even among them the body is better served by giving far less information to others than nudity permits.

What separates us form dogs and apes is not, I suggest, intellect or hairlessness, but shame. Fashion is nice compensation for guilt, however. And the ability to avoid observing other naked mammals groom is also wonderful.

About 30 years ago the National Lampoon ran an illustration depicting the Supremes engaged in nine different perversions. For example, Justice Douglas was having carnal knowledge of a kangaroo. Justice Marshall was wielding a whip. That sort of thing.

Of course, the illustration got passed around the Justice's chambers.

When the picture arrived at Justice Blackmun's office, his clerks showed it to him.

Upon seeing it, he expressed relief. The illustration depicted him holding his coat open with two aghast children standing in front of him.

Blackmun thought it well and good that he was shown protecting children from the wicked things the other Justices were doing.

I see naked people every single day at work. I would argue that people should be very squeamish, and avoid the temptation to share your wares with the rest of us.

So few of us are as beautiful as Michaelangelo's David, and if we saw even David walking around, scratching, eating, squatting, and chatting up some bird, the appeal would soon pass, and we would hire a tailor, find him some socks and boxers, and be satisfied with the brief exposures at a museum.

Even if limited to the fairer ones among under-30 crowd, nudity has some fairly obvious disadvantages. Clipping one's cell phone at the waist becomes rather painful, for one. Gardening becomes dangerous. And don't even think about pets.

The female form is a thing of wonder. Grace in movement and enchantment by the toss of hair or dangling finger. Males? Not so much.

In artwork, quite lovely. At length, on a cruise, unable to enjoy the myth permitted by film, photo, or sculpture, but faced with the actual lumpen man? Me, I'd rather eat glass.

Having seen thousands of naked people in every form, from godlike to jabbathehut, having explored every nook and cranny, and even gone inside of chest, abdomen, and skull, I can attest that you aren't missing much. Imagination trumps reality. You may disagree, but I don't see the nudity thing becoming much of a threat in Wisconsin.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams ... glitter in the dark near Tanhauser Gate."

So the naked judge can see first hand that Bare Necessities books travelers according to a formula that usually denies boarding to numerous males in an attempt to equalize the number of men and women--a direct violation of our Public Accommodation law here in Austin, which proscribes discrimination based on sex.